Allahabad High Court
Bismilla Idrisi vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 6 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001CRILJ331
Author: S.K. Agarwal
Bench: S.K. Agarwal
ORDER S.K. Agarwal, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.
2. I have perused the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai dated 30-6-1984 and I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the above said order.
3. It has been contended before me by the learned counsel for the applicant that the act of the applicant is squarely covered by the provision of Section 197, Cr.P.C. For ready reference the provision is being quoted as under :
When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction -
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government.
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.
(Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in Clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under Clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, Clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government".)
4. Sub-section (1) of Section 197, Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the prosecution against a public servant can be brought only with the sanction of the concerned Government or the authority empowered if that act was committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Without such sanction no Court can take any cognizance in such prosecution on any complaint or charge sheet by any agency competent to investigate or an individual against whom offence was committed.
5. The allegations made against the applicant are that the complainant was awarded a contract for the construction of a bridge but due to non-supply of cement construction could not be completed in time. It appears clearly that the contract was cancelled and allotted to someone else. It is alleged that the material belonging to him was used in connivance with the applicant in construction of that bridge. The Chief Judicial Magistrate finding a prima facie case made out has held that it has no relation with the official duty of the above accused persons and accordingly he had rejected their application.
6. I have gone through the fact of the case and I am of considered opinion that there is no application of Section 197, Cr.P.C. to these facts and circumstances. In order to avoid adverse consequences and claim the benefit of Section 197, Cr.P.C. it is incumbent upon the applicant to show that the act or offence alleged against him is committed by him in the discharge of his official duties or in the purported discharge of the same. He has to establish a nexus between the alleged offence and discharge of his official duty.
7. In the present case the act of the applicant is not covered by any of the two clauses of Section 197, Cr.P.C. If the applicant had asked or allowed any one to use material belonging to the complainant in the construction of Government Bridge the work so completed does not come to his rescue. He had absolutely no authority to direct any one to use personal property in any Government work unless such property of another person is requisitioned by an appropriate Governmental order. In the absence of any such fact the requisite relationship between his official duty and the offence alleged against him is missing. The offence of either theft or misappropriation has absolutely nothing to do with his official duty. These offences are individual offences. He has no authority to permit anyone to utilize some other persons properly in completing any State work.
8. In view of this fact this revision does not appear to have any force. However, taking into consideration the long lapse of time i.e. 16 years in hearing this case it shall not be proper to direct the arrest of the applicant. There is absolutely no apprehension of either his running away or absconding from law.
9. In the circumstances I direct the trial Court to release the applicant on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate and he shall ensure presence in Court as and when called upon to do so.
10. The Court below shall not go by any observations made by me in my order. He is free to apply his mind to the evidence that will come forth on the record independent of these observations.
11. With this direction this revision stands dismissed.